Abdelrazak Younes wrote: >>> I'd like to propose that 2.x release are only about GUI improvements and >>> code cleanup. IOW 2.x should keep the file format unchanged. >> >> How are you going to do that? No format change? This is not going to >> happen. > > Why not? Why should be rush in changing the file format? I think there is a > lot that be can be done without changing the file format.
this would be showstopper for bibliography improvements and so on. i dont see a single reason why should we stop bumping fileformat. thats why we have stable branch. >>> 3.0 would in this scheme introduce a new file format, maybe XML, maybe >>> not. >> >> Why not. I do not think we should put too much symbolism in version >> numbers. on the other hand version number 2.7 looks better than 27 ;) version 3.0 in next 10 years looks just fine to me. >>> I'd like also to propose that we switch to git now for 2.1 and than svn >>> is kept only for 2.0.x bug fixing... At this point we should have one >>> branch per new GUI feature or code cleanup; this branch will be merged >>> only if complete. This will help 2.x to remain stable despite the >>> incremental improvements. >> >> We have to balance what git will bring vs. the destabilization of 'normal' >> developers. > > Most "active" developers (I am not) are already using git AFAIK... i dont think you are right (highly depends on Richard) if we count it on the number of commits. i use git personally but i'm not so excited about the change because of loosing linear numbering of commits in trunk. >As for the "destabilization" aspect, that's why I propose to keep svn for >2.0.x... afaic the main problem was "who" will do the relevant administrative changes on server, from setup, to connection into trac ond so on. i can't remember single man who wanted to do it. pavel
